sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Three New Justices, Appoints Five High Court Chief Justices in Historic Reshuffle

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Three New Justices, Appoints Five High Court Chief Justices in Historic Reshuffle JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF SHAHRUKH EJAZ JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KANDIVALI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S SHRI JAYANTILAL H. PATEL LAW COLLEGE JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GEHI LAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADV. SHASHI PRATAP SINGH LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF AKSHAY MOHILEY INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A&N LAW OFFICES LLP LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAKSHMIKUMARAN AND SRIDHARAN ATTORNEYS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT VAISH ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, GURUGRAM Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Three New Justices, Appoints Five High Court Chief Justices in Historic Reshuffle Mahi Sinha 28 May 2025 The Supreme Court collegium recommends the elevation of three judges to the apex court and five to head high courts in a historic judicial reshuffle. Get full details of appointments and profiles. Historic Move by Supreme Court Collegium in May 2025 In a significant development, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, has recommended the elevation of three high court judges to the Supreme Court of India. Simultaneously, it has proposed the appointment of five new chief justices to lead high courts across India. This large-scale reshuffle aims to fill crucial vacancies left by recent and upcoming retirements, marking one of the most notable judicial reorganizations in India’s legal system. Judges Recommended for Elevation to the Supreme Court Following a detailed meeting, the collegium approved the elevation of the following justices to the Supreme Court of India: Justice NV Anjaria – Karnataka High Court Current Position: Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court Background: Appointed to Gujarat High Court on November 21, 2011 Elevated as CJ of Karnataka HC: February 25, 2024 Expected Tenure in SC: Just under five years Justice Vijay Bishnoi – Gauhati High Court Current Position: Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court Background: Appointed to Rajasthan High Court on January 8, 2013 Became Gauhati HC CJ: February 5, 2024 Expected Tenure in SC: Shorter than the other two justices Justice AS Chandurkar – Bombay High Court Current Position: Judge, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) Background: Practicing since 1992; elevated to bench on June 21, 2013 Expected Tenure in SC: Just under five years These appointments will fill vacancies created by the retirements of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi set to retire on June 9, 2025. New Chief Justices Appointed to Five High Courts The collegium has also proposed the elevation of five judges as Chief Justices of various High Courts, strengthening leadership at the state level: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva – Madhya Pradesh High Court Current Position: Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Role: Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh HC Justice Vibhu Bakhru – Karnataka High Court Current Position: Judge, Delhi High Court Proposed Role: Chief Justice, Karnataka HC Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi – Patna High Court Current Position: Judge, Patna High Court Proposed Role: Chief Justice, Patna HC Justice Ashutosh Kumar – Gauhati High Court Current Position: Judge, Patna High Court Proposed Role: Chief Justice, Gauhati HC Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan – Jharkhand High Court Current Position: Judge, Himachal Pradesh High Court Proposed Role: Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court The vacancy in the Jharkhand High Court is expected due to the anticipated removal of the current chief justice. Composition of the Supreme Court Collegium The current Supreme Court Collegium includes: Chief Justice BR Gavai Justice Suryakant Justice Vikram Nath Justice JK Maheshwari Justice BV Nagarathna This five-member body plays a pivotal role in appointments and transfers within the Indian higher judiciary. Significance of These Judicial Appointments This wave of appointments is crucial for: Addressing judicial vacancies in the Supreme Court and high courts Strengthening judicial leadership across Indian states Maintaining the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength of 34 judges Currently, the Supreme Court has 31 serving judges, and these recommendations aim to restore full strength. Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the Indian Judiciary The May 2025 judicial reshuffle marks a transformative moment for India’s legal system. Through strategic appointments, the Supreme Court Collegium is reinforcing judicial infrastructure and ensuring continued delivery of justice at the highest level. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Three New Justices, Appoints Five High Court Chief Justices in Historic Reshuffle Read More »

State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act NITU KUMARI 27 May 2025 Explore the landmark 2024 Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Union of India, addressing CBI jurisdiction post-consent withdrawal under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. A critical case on federalism and Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. Introduction On July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of State of West Bengal vs Union of India, addressing the legality of CBI investigations following the withdrawal of consent by a state government. The case was filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and States. This case centers around the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its powers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), especially Section 6, which requires state consent for CBI investigations within state territory. Facts of the Case On November 16, 2018, the Government of West Bengal withdrew the general consent granted to the CBI under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Despite the withdrawal, the CBI continued to register FIRs and conduct investigations within the state. West Bengal filed a civil suit under Original Suit No. 4 of 2021, seeking a declaration that such actions were unconstitutional. The state requested a judicial restraint on the CBI from investigating within West Bengal without specific consent or court direction. The Union of India argued that CBI’s authority stems from central powers and that withdrawal of consent does not override judicial or statutory permissions. Key Legal Issues Can the CBI operate within a state after withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act? Does this dispute fall under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Article 131? Is the suit maintainable in light of ongoing proceedings under Articles 136, 226, or 32? Did the CBI’s post-withdrawal actions violate constitutional federalism? Judgment Overview Bench The case was heard by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta. Case Citation 2024 INSC 502 The Supreme Court held that the suit was maintainable under Article 131 and that disputes involving inter-governmental constitutional matters fall within the Court’s original jurisdiction. Legal Reasoning Ratio Decidendi (Core Legal Principle) Withdrawal of general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act does not invalidate ongoing investigations initiated before the withdrawal. For new FIRs or investigations, the CBI must obtain specific consent or a court order. Federal structure demands mutual respect between Union and State authorities. Obiter Dicta (Additional Observations) The Court emphasized the importance of federal cooperation. Clear guidelines and jurisdictional protocols are essential to prevent conflicts between the Centre and States. Court Directions The CBI must adhere to jurisdictional limits post withdrawal of consent. The Union and States must develop clear procedures to manage CBI investigations fairly and transparently. Federalism requires the autonomy of both Central and State governments to be respected. Conclusion The Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Union of India (2024) marks a critical moment in the debate over CBI jurisdiction and federalism in India. The decision reinforces that state consent is essential for new investigations, upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism and legal clarity. The ruling sets a precedent for similar disputes between State and Central agencies, emphasizing the need for balance and constitutional integrity in India’s federal framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Read More »

Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Prabhat Kumar biltoria 27 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has directed the maintenance of status quo on the liquidation proceedings of Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd (BPSL), giving JSW Steel an opportunity to submit a review petition. This development comes after JSW Steel’s resolution plan for BPSL was rejected by the Supreme Court on May 2, 2025. Supreme Court’s Order on Bhushan Steel Liquidation A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Sharma issued the order, emphasizing fairness and justice. The court noted that advancing the liquidation process before JSW Steel files a review petition could jeopardize their legal rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court halted the liquidation proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), allowing JSW Steel time to challenge the earlier ruling. JSW Steel’s Legal Position and Timeline Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing JSW Steel, highlighted that the NCLT had initiated the appointment of a liquidator even before the deadline for submitting JSW’s review petition, set for June 2, 2025. Kaul stressed that the case is complex and requires careful examination since the resolution plan was proposed four years ago and the company remains profitable. The NCLT is scheduled to hear the matter shortly, with the Supreme Court’s status quo order aimed at preventing further complications if a liquidator is appointed prematurely. Insights from the Solicitor General and Other Legal Representatives Indian Solicitor General Tushar Mehta proposed postponing proceedings until June 10, 2025, to accommodate the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and all parties involved. Justice Nagarathna noted that review petitions typically aren’t considered during judicial vacations, underlining procedural challenges. Mehta also criticized past financial irregularities tied to the case, pointing to complications involving foreign banks and prior fund misappropriations. Meanwhile, Sanjay Singhal, former promoter of BPSL, faced scrutiny over alleged malpractices, with his legal team opposing JSW Steel’s petition. Supreme Court’s Clarification on Review Petition and Status Quo Justice Nagarathna clarified that the court’s status quo order does not comment on the merits of the case but solely serves justice and procedural fairness. JSW Steel committed to filing its review petition within the stipulated legal timeframe. The Supreme Court emphasized maintaining the current state of liquidation proceedings before the NCLT to avoid further legal conflicts. Background: JSW Steel’s Rejected Resolution Plan JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for BPSL was rejected by the Supreme Court for violating Sections 30(2) and 31(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) acted unlawfully by approving the plan. Following this, the Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Steel under Section 33 of the IBC. Sanjay Singhal petitioned the Delhi NCLT to implement the liquidation, urging the tribunal to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision fully. Conclusion: What’s Next for Bhushan Steel and JSW Steel? The Supreme Court’s order to maintain status quo temporarily halts Bhushan Steel’s liquidation, offering JSW Steel a vital window to submit a review petition. This ongoing legal battle highlights significant aspects of India’s insolvency process and the enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for stakeholders, creditors, and the Indian steel industry. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Read More »

Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KUKI SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Mahi Sinha 27 May 2025 The Kerala High Court has asked the state to respond to a bail plea filed by an Enforcement Directorate officer accused of demanding a ₹2 crore bribe. Read the full details of the corruption case involving ED officials and alleged hawala links. Introduction On May 26, 2025, the Kerala High Court sought the State Government’s response to a bail application filed by an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer, Shekhar Kumar, accused of demanding a ₹2 crore bribe in exchange for relief in an ongoing investigation. The plea was heard by Justice G. Girish (no Wikipedia page found). Bail Plea Filed by ED Officer Shekhar Kumar Shekhar Kumar, an Assistant Director at the ED office in Kochi, filed a petition claiming that the bribery allegations are fabricated. He argued that the complainant, Aneesh Babu (no Wikipedia page), made false claims to evade investigation into his own financial crimes, including defrauding businesses by promising cheap imported cashew nuts. Allegations Against the Complainant The officer alleges that Aneesh Babu is involved in at least five fraud cases, with ₹24 crore reportedly embezzled. These scams involved collecting money under the guise of delivering imported cashew nuts through a business called Vazhavila Cashews, registered in Babu’s mother’s name. Key Details of the Corruption Case The ₹2 Crore Bribe Demand According to the complaint, Shekhar Kumar allegedly threatened Aneesh Babu during an ED interrogation and demanded old company records. Shortly after, Wilson Varghese (no Wikipedia page), named as the second accused, contacted the complainant and demanded ₹2 crore to settle the matter in favor of Babu. Vigilance Trap and Arrests The Ernakulam Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau set up a trap, catching Wilson Varghese red-handed while accepting ₹2 lakh in bribe money. During the investigation, two more individuals were linked: Mukesh Kumar (no Wikipedia page) – Alleged involvement in hawala transactions Ranjith Warriar (no Wikipedia page) – A chartered accountant allegedly facilitating the operation Legal Charges and Proceedings The accused have been charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 61(2) for criminal conspiracy and Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribery involving public servants. On May 22, the Vigilance Court in Muvattupuzha granted bail to the second, third, and fourth accused due to lack of proper documentation regarding the reasons for their arrest. Legal Representation The bail petition for Shekhar Kumar was filed by a team of advocates including: K. Aravind Menon P. Vijaya Bhanu (Senior Advocate) P. M. Rafiq M. Revikrishnan Ajeesh K. Sasi Sruthy N. Bhat Rahul Sunil Sruthy K. K. Nanditha S. Sohail Ahammed Harris P.P. Aaron Zacharias Benny P. Aravind Menon (These names do not have Wikipedia pages, but can be internally linked if they are part of your site or legal directory.) Conclusion The case involving a senior Enforcement Directorate officer’s alleged corruption has stirred significant public interest, especially with connections to hawala networks and large-scale corporate fraud. The Kerala High Court’s decision on the bail plea will be a crucial turning point in the ongoing investigation. Stay updated with the latest legal news from Kerala and developments in anti-corruption cases across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Read More »

Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KUKI SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY BY ADVOCATE MALLIKA PRABHAKAR, DELHI Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 May 2025 The Bombay High Court has paused Mumbai Airport’s bid process to replace Turkish firm Celebi Nas Airport Services over a revoked security clearance. Learn more about the legal dispute, national security concerns, and how this impacts airport operations in India. Celebi Ground Handling Case: High Court Stalls MIAL’s Replacement Plans Background – Why Celebi Is in the Spotlight Turkish company Celebi Nas Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of Çelebi Aviation Holding, has been providing ground handling and bridge handling services at Mumbai International Airport since 2015. However, in May 2025, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoked Celebi’s security clearance citing national security concerns. This decision was influenced by ongoing India–Pakistan relations and Turkey’s support for Pakistan. Bombay High Court’s Intervention On May 26, 2025, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order preventing Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from making a final decision regarding bids to replace Celebi. These bids were initiated on May 17, shortly after BCAS’s decision. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, presiding over the Vacation Court, accepted Celebi’s argument that any premature decision would cause “irreversible harm” to the company and its employees. Impact on Employees and Contracts Celebi’s legal counsel, Chetan Kapadia, argued that the abrupt revocation had already resulted in over 2,000 employees losing their jobs. Many had been with the company for nearly a decade, receiving extensive training and certification. Celebi had signed long-term contracts with MIAL for ground handling (2018) and bridge handling (2015), each spanning 30 years. The company has made significant investments in training, equipment, and infrastructure. MIAL’s Justification and Response MIAL countered that a “special clause” in its agreement allows it to act under Government of India directives, particularly in matters of national security. Therefore, no prior notice was necessary for termination. In the interim, MIAL assigned Indo-Thai Aviation to continue services using Celebi’s existing personnel and equipment. The Court directed Indo-Thai to submit a financial and operational report, which MIAL must share with Celebi along with all obligations. Ongoing Legal Battle in Multiple Courts Celebi has filed three petitions: A writ petition contesting BCAS’s decision in the Bombay High Court Two arbitration applications challenging MIAL’s contract termination Additionally, Celebi Airport Services India and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India have filed similar cases in the Delhi High Court concerning the Delhi Airport. What’s Next for Airport Ground Handling in India? The Celebi-MIAL dispute highlights the growing overlap of aviation law, national security, and international business in India. As proceedings continue, the verdict may shape future policies for foreign airport service providers operating within Indian territory. Key Takeaways Celebi’s clearance revoked by BCAS over national security grounds Bombay High Court halts MIAL’s decision to replace Celebi Over 2,000 jobs affected, with contracts worth crores in dispute Legal action pending in both Bombay and Delhi High Courts Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Read More »

Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KUKI SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY BY ADVOCATE MALLIKA PRABHAKAR, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DIVINUS LAW, DELHI Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India ruled that prosecution may submit documents omitted from the chargesheet, provided no harm is caused to the accused. Learn how this decision aligns with the R.S. Pai judgment and Section 173 of the CrPC. Supreme Court Allows Late Submission of Evidence in Criminal Trials In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the prosecution may present documents not included in the initial chargesheet, as long as the omission was unintentional and causes no prejudice to the accused. Key Ruling: Procedural Errors Can Be Corrected Post-Chargesheet The court clarified that whether the documents were obtained before or after the investigation, the prosecution can still submit them later if they have a valid reason for the delay. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih, emphasized that procedural lapses in evidence submission are curable—provided they don’t infringe on the accused’s rights. The Controversy Around the CDs in Evidence The prosecution sought to introduce additional documents in the form of Compact Discs (CDs), which were mentioned in a supplementary chargesheet but omitted from submission to the magistrate. Despite this oversight, the magistrate allowed the CDs during the trial phase. The accused contested this decision in the High Court, which upheld the inclusion, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal Challenge Based on CrPC Section 173 The appellant argued that under Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), all relevant evidence must be submitted along with the chargesheet. Since the CDs were available during the initial investigation, they claimed it was impermissible to introduce them later under the pretext of “further investigation” per Section 173(8). Prosecution Cites R.S. Pai Judgment The prosecution countered that the omission was inadvertent, and the CDs were in fact mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet. They cited the precedent set in the landmark judgment of Central Bureau of Investigation v. R. S. Pai and Another, (2002) 5 SCC 82, which allows for post-chargesheet submission of documents in the absence of malice or prejudice. Supreme Court Upholds Flexibility in Evidence Submission Justice Oka, writing the judgment, upheld the principles established in the R.S. Pai case. He reiterated that the CDs were referenced in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 13 October 2013 and were not new items. The court observed that the CDs had been seized earlier, sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for voice sample analysis, and were always intended to be part of the prosecution’s case. Final Observations and Legal Impact Applying the precedent from R.S. Pai, the Supreme Court held that the Special Court and High Court were correct in allowing the CDs as evidence. This judgment reinforces that unintentional procedural errors in criminal investigations can be remedied, provided they don’t infringe on the legal rights of the accused. Conclusion: Upholding Justice While Ensuring Procedural Fairness The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a critical reminder that the goal of the criminal justice system is not only to punish the guilty but also to ensure a fair trial for all parties involved. By allowing the prosecution to present additional evidence—such as the omitted CDs—even after the chargesheet is filed, the court has balanced procedural integrity with judicial pragmatism. This judgment reinforces the principle that curable errors should not impede justice, as long as the rights of the accused are safeguarded. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KUKI SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY BY ADVOCATE MALLIKA PRABHAKAR, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DIVINUS LAW, DELHI Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India reaffirms the ‘One-State-One-Unit’ principle, dismissing the Vidarbha Hockey Association’s plea for membership in Hockey India and the Indian Olympic Association. Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Rule in Vidarbha Hockey Association Case In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the ‘One-State-One-Unit’ policy by rejecting the plea of the Vidarbha Hockey Association for recognition as an associate member of both Hockey India and the Indian Olympic Association. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, heard brief arguments before allowing the petitioner to withdraw the case. Court Emphasizes Olympic Sport Governance Norms The apex court reiterated, “Hockey is an Olympic sport, and under the rules of the Indian Olympic Association, only one body per state can be recognized.” The petitioner sought a writ directing Hockey India and the Indian Olympic Association to restore its associate membership, which was initially granted in 2013. However, the bench questioned the legal basis for such intervention under its writ jurisdiction. Membership Cancellation Deemed in Line With IOA Regulations Previously, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision to cancel the Vidarbha Hockey Association’s membership. The petitioner’s lawyer argued the removal was “arbitrary,” noting that Delhi had over 20 associate members. But the court noted that the Indian Olympic Association’s policy permits only one recognized unit per state. Justice Datta pointed out that examples given by the petitioner — such as the “Cricket Association” and “Kabaddi Federation” — were irrelevant since neither is an Olympic sport. He stressed that both the petitioner and the Mumbai Hockey Association were de-registered for the same reason: duplicity of representation for Maharashtra. Supreme Court Questions Timing and Urgency of Petition Justice Kant questioned the timing of the petition, which came nearly a year after the original order in June 2024. “You are submitting SLP in May 2025 and pushing for listing during vacation. What urgent development occurred in the last few days?” he asked. The bench criticized the last-minute listing requests that caused additional workload during partial Court sessions. High Court Proceedings Not Properly Utilized Justice Datta further asked whether the petitioner had submitted an affidavit regarding the matter in the High Court. Upon the counsel’s negative reply, the judge remarked, “Then that’s the end of the matter… You should have raised it in the High Court, not here for the first time.” Case Withdrawn and Dismissed Ultimately, the court permitted the withdrawal of the case, effectively dismissing it. The decision reinforces the regulatory authority of Hockey India and the Indian Olympic Association under the ‘One-State-One-Unit’ framework, ensuring clarity and consistency in sports governance across India. Conclusion: A Strong Message for Sports Governance in India The Supreme Court’s firm dismissal of the Vidarbha Hockey Association’s plea sends a clear message reinforcing the integrity of sports governance in India. By upholding the ‘One-State-One-Unit’ principle, the judgment ensures uniformity and avoids administrative confusion within national sports federations like Hockey India and the Indian Olympic Association. This landmark ruling not only affirms the legal standing of the Olympic sports framework but also discourages fragmented regional representation that could disrupt national unity in Indian sports administration. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Read More »

Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KUKI SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY BY ADVOCATE MALLIKA PRABHAKAR, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DIVINUS LAW, DELHI Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 May 2025 The Karnataka government is set to challenge a Supreme Court order awarding Rs 3,011 crore in TDR compensation to the Mysuru royal family. Get the full story, legal context, and latest developments here. Legal Dispute Over Transferable Development Rights (TDR) The Karnataka government has filed a legal appeal challenging the issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legitimate heirs of the former Mysore royal family. The case involves a disputed acquisition of 15 acres at the historic Bangalore Palace Grounds. TDR certificates are typically issued as compensation to landowners who voluntarily relinquish property for public infrastructure projects. These certificates allow development on alternative land parcels, offering significant financial value. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Karnataka’s Appeal According to a report from PTI, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal on how the state could seek a review of a prior judgment by a coordinate bench. The earlier ruling—delivered on May 22 by Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar—ordered Karnataka to issue TDR certificates worth ₹3,011 crore to the royal successors. Legal Grounds: Conflict Between 1996 Act and 2004 Amendment Sibal argued that the acquisition was carried out under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, which had already set a compensation of ₹11 crore. He stressed that the TDR provision—added only in 2004 through an amendment to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act—could not be retroactively applied. He further emphasized that Section 14B, which governs TDR allocation, is applicable only when land is willingly surrendered by owners, not when compulsorily acquired by the State. Bench Debates Judicial Authority in Appeal Context The bench also debated whether it could “sit in appeal” over a ruling by a parallel bench. However, Sibal clarified that the state was not seeking to overturn the decision but merely requesting that its legal concerns be considered within the broader context of the ongoing appeal. Conclusion: Legal Battle Highlights Complexities in Land Compensation Laws The ongoing legal tussle between the Karnataka government and the Mysuru royal family underscores the complexities surrounding property rights, historical acquisitions, and modern compensation mechanisms like TDR certificates. With the matter now before the Supreme Court of India, the final ruling could set a significant precedent for how legacy land disputes are handled, particularly when old laws intersect with new urban development policies. All eyes are now on the court’s interpretation, which could reshape compensation frameworks across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Sada Law • May 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Read More »

Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KUKI SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY BY ADVOCATE MALLIKA PRABHAKAR, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DIVINUS LAW, DELHI Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Supreme Court Allows Delhi Government to Withdraw AAP-Era Petitions Against Centre and LG, Including Services Act Challenge Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 May 2025 The Supreme Court recently declined to rule on whether the Lokayukta can challenge a decision by an Administrative Tribunal to revoke a mandatory retirement penalty for corruption. Discover what this means for anti-corruption proceedings in India. Can Lokayukta Legally Challenge Administrative Tribunal Decisions? The legal status of whether the Lokayukta has the authority to contest decisions made by an Administrative Tribunal remains uncertain, following a recent development in the Supreme Court of India. On May 26, 2025, the apex court left the question open while dismissing a petition filed by the Lokayukta. The case revolved around the tribunal’s decision to revoke a mandatory retirement punishment issued for alleged corruption. Background of the Case: Karnataka Lokayukta’s Appeal The Lokayukta had appealed against a ruling by the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s decision to overturn the penalty. The original punishment—mandatory retirement—had been imposed following charges of corruption against the respondent. A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta heard the matter. The justices questioned whether the Lokayukta, as a quasi-judicial body, had the legal standing to appeal a decision that the actual disciplinary authority did not challenge. Supreme Court’s Observations on Jurisdiction Justice Datta noted that although the Lokayukta was made a party to the proceedings, it lacked the authority to independently dispute the tribunal’s exoneration of the accused. The bench posed critical questions:“Has the disciplinary authority arrived? Have you been wronged? Who are you?” These questions highlighted doubts about the Lokayukta’s role in such disciplinary proceedings—especially in situations where the accused is acquitted in a criminal court under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of evidence for demand and acceptance of bribes. Outcome: Petition Dismissed, Legal Uncertainty Remains After 277 days of deliberation, the petition was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court did not deliver a definitive ruling on the Lokayukta’s legal standing in such cases. This leaves a critical gap in understanding the scope of the Lokayukta’s powers in contesting administrative decisions on corruption-related penalties. Conclusion: A Grey Area in Anti-Corruption Jurisprudence While the Supreme Court’s dismissal closes the door on this specific appeal, the broader legal question remains unresolved. Can the Lokayukta challenge tribunal decisions when the disciplinary authority remains passive? Legal clarity on this issue is vital for strengthening institutional mechanisms against corruption in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Sada Law • May 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Sada Law • May 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open Read More »

Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Supreme Court Allows Delhi Government to Withdraw AAP-Era Petitions Against Centre and LG, Including Services Act Challenge Supreme Court Hears Petition to Ban Gambling Apps and Celebrity Endorsements Amid Rising Suicides Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Citing Mental Illness and Article 21 Right to Defense Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks Supreme Court to Hear Petition Against Two-Shift NEET PG 2025 Exam Format Next Week Delhi Judge Transferred Amid Bribery Allegations; Court Clerk Claims ACB Retaliation Plot Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 26 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India ruled that referring to trial courts as “lower courts” is unconstitutional. This decision reaffirms the equality of all courts under the Indian Constitution and highlights concerns about unfair investigation in a criminal appeal. Supreme Court Declares Term “Lower Court” Unconstitutional In a landmark observation, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that referring to any court as a “lower court” violates the spirit of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that records from a Trial Court should not be labeled as “Lower Court Records.” Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih Reinforce Constitutional Values During a recent criminal appeal, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih reiterated the importance of using the correct terminology. They asserted that the term “Lower Court Record (LCR)” should be replaced with “Trial Court Record (TCR).” Registry Circulars Support Supreme Court Directive The Court referred to its earlier judgment dated February 8, 2024, wherein it directed the Registry to avoid the term “Lower Court Record.” Following this directive, a circular was issued on February 28, 2024, formalizing the usage of “Trial Court Record (TCR)” in all official documentation. Case Background: Overturning a Life Sentence These observations came during a case in which the Supreme Court overturned a life sentence previously handed down under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were initially convicted of serious criminal offenses. Failure of Fair Investigation Highlighted The Court found that the prosecution failed to conduct a fair investigation. It had suppressed vital affidavits from witnesses PW-5 to PW-7, relying solely on the testimony of PW-4. This lack of due diligence raised serious concerns about the reliability of the conviction. Suppressed Evidence and Missing Weapons Adding to the concerns, the weapons of offence were never recovered, and no further investigation was carried out despite the affidavits pointing to critical leads. The Court deemed this failure significant, ultimately determining that the conviction was unsafe under these circumstances. Conclusion: Upholding Judicial Dignity Through Language The Supreme Court’s stance on avoiding the term “lower court” is more than a semantic correction—it’s a reaffirmation of the equality and dignity of all courts within India’s judicial system. By insisting on the use of “Trial Court Record (TCR)” instead of “Lower Court Record (LCR),” the Court sends a powerful message about respecting constitutional values and ensuring procedural fairness. This case also underscores the critical importance of thorough and unbiased investigations in criminal trials, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the guardian of justice and fairness. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Sada Law • May 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Supreme Court: Bribe Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand, Not Just Recovery of Tainted Money Sada Law • May 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Allows Delhi Government to Withdraw AAP-Era Petitions Against Centre and LG, Including Services Act Challenge Supreme Court Allows Delhi Government to Withdraw AAP-Era Petitions Against Centre and LG, Including Services Act Challenge Sada Law • May 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Courts as “Lower Courts” Is Unconstitutional Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote